Talk:Francisco Franco

Franco the Fascist?

Pardon my apparent ignorance about this piece of history, and I apologize for whatever flame war may ensue, but was Franco a fascist? Did he ever claim to embrace fascism or express pursuit of its aims? I've always been under the impression he was just a "basic" autocrat. 74.107.119.82 (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The term 'fascist' is a little subjective. Franco may have not instigated the holocaust like Hitler and as perceived fascists go he was probably a moderate. I suppose his far-right neo-conservatism, his colonial desires, his distaste for democracy, his love of censorship and his heavy intervention in everyday life possibly put him in the category for fascists, although all the above statements apply aptly to Winston Churchill, yet history has a different reminiscent view of him. Calling Franco a fascist does equate him somewhat with Hitler and Mussolini, which is probably not entirely fair and a little misleading, but somehow the terms 'moderate fascist' and 'liberal fascist' have an inherent irony to them. Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI the question has popped up a couple of times earlier in this talk page. Perhaps the best discussion was at the Not a fascist thread. Btw, Jmabel contribution there should not be glossed over. There are a couple of reasons why, though, to reach a consensus is mainly impossible:

1. The concept Fascism is really difficult to define
2. Very early (prior to 1933) it became a "propaganda" derisive term, i.e. deprived of real meaning, but not of derogatory sense (it was not unusual to call socialdemocratic parties "social-fascists", for instance) The derogatory sense of the term has outlived its origins.
3. The equation Fascism = Nazism has made the term the apex of the unacceptable in political thinking, and to stick this label on to any political movement is to deprive it of any legitimity or "goodness" without the need of further discussing it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllacer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually finding a consensus is not quite that difficult, as Stanley Payne, the preeminent scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist." (quoted in Laqueur, Walter Fascism: Past, Present, Future, p. 13, 1997 Oxford University Press US) The reason for this consensus is that fascism is almost always described as having a radical, revolutionary, palingenic component or a goal to "remake" man. Franco unequivocally lacks this element. As to consensus on a definition of fascism, there has been for sometime talk of a "new consensus", interestingly, as pointed out by Roger Griffin, even most of those who object to the existence of a consensus posit definitions which are consistent with what Griffin says is the consensus. Mamalujo (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that definition is denied as soon as one considers Russell's assertion in his History of Western Philosophy that Fascism is not only a political movement but also a philosophy which, like some others, has as a fundamental belief that there are those who are born to have power and those who are not. Thus the right to slaughter one's opponents - including political or religious opponents - is an inherent part of Fascist philosophy, not merely an inconvenient trait of some Fascist politicians. In sum, was Franco a far right politician and dictator who slaughtered his opponents? Yes. Does that reasonably qualify him to be called Fascist? IMV yes.

Drg40 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Wllacer's comments above. Individuals are far too complex to slap mere labels on them, and Franco's personality has been/is/and probably will always be notoriously difficult to define. Consensus on this issue, as with just about any other issue, is therefore impossible, and like all consensus, will only depend on the specific moment in time said consensus is reached. The oft-quoted Payne states that Franco was not a "core" fascist. Nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, at the time of the SCW, while much of the support for Franco in Spain came from pro-fascists, and outside support came directly from fascists, this obviously does not make Franco a fascist himself, although he undoubtedly had more sympathies with fascism than with the opposite end of the spectrum at the time, communism. Simplistic? Necessarily so. BTW, George Orwell, among other writers writing at the time, referred to fighting against fascism, represented in Spain by Franco. Notwithstanding the above, I personally would not define Franco as a fascist, and I think Mtaylor sums it up quite neatly above. --Technopat (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The general consensus I have seen among is that Franco wasn't much for ideology, so its hard to pin him to a specific "ism." On the other hand, he ended up leading the Fascist Falange and put Falange members in to high office after the civil war. He also supported the Axis in WWII. After WWII, Franco stepped back from his alliance with the Falange and put less ideological people in charge, dropped the Roman salute, and steered toward more garden variety autocracy. As others have stated, the definition of fascism is vague, but Franco at least shared the conservatism, traditionalism, militarism, and nationalism of his fascist allies. I think the article has generally reflected this complex relationship between Franco and fascism. That said, is there a specific point to this discussion? Talk pages are not supposed to be about edits to the article, not general discussions.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bkwillwm n this case i do think its relevant. First because it is an issue which comes forward with certain regularity, it's about if the term fascist is or not a weasel word in Franco's case, and, though important, is a question which shall be discussed to understand Franco but only fits in the main page seriosuly digested, and could have serious impact in the rest of the article. Just as a sample let me fisk your (and Technopat) comment:

he ended up leading the Fascist Falange and put Falange members in to high office after the civil war

Well, what Franco really did in 1937 was to create an unified political support branch with a forced merger of the two groups with leading militias on his side (Falangism and Carlists) and a number of other supporters of the "Alzamiento". The unified party remained for the rest of its active live a balanced coalition of very divergent views, and always secondary to the state and army (the opposite to "real fascist" states). Although cross-dressed with fascist trapping, the majority ideological view was rather linked to "Accion Española" -authoritarian right-. than to Falange proper, In the Ramón Serrano Suñer times (up to 1943) there was a trend to "fascistize" the regime, but it never took off (this last statement is wide open to further study). If this balance of power is not understood the internal political development is unintelligible.

He also supported the Axis in WWII.

And for the greatest joy of historians who love to discuss in a complex and ambiguous manner ;-)

After WWII, Franco stepped back from his alliance with the Falange and put less ideologicfal people in charge, dropped the Roman salute, and steered toward more garden variety autocracy

See first fisk. The internal imbalance of power inside the goverment and party was shifted against the "old shirts" (camisas viejas, pre 18-july falangists) in two phases. First in 1943, where both the international situation and internal incidents like the bombing at the shirne of Begoña, made an end to the most militant falangism (and carlist oponents, btw), and later in 1954/57, when a series of politcal and economical unrests, made the falangists lose their influence in the economical realm. Even after that, people like Jose Antonio Girón de Velasco still kept important positions. IIRC the roman salute outside the party was dropped in 1947

As others have stated, the definition fo fascism is vague, but Franco at least shared the conservatism, tradditionalism, militarism, and nationalism of his fascist allies

Well, exactlcy the two first caracteristics are what do NOT make francoism fascist, and the two others are rather neutral. If anything, nor italian Fascism neither german Nazism were conservative or traditionalists

I shall point that this discussion is not new, as it exists since 1936. One of the funniest moments in Radosh's Spain Betrayed is document #27, where Antonov-Oseenko (General Consul of the Soviet Union in Barcelona) tells how he lectured Companys and others that they were fighting "Fascism" and not classical "reactionaries", as the spaniards thought. YMMV but i found it telling ..., what brings me back to Orwell (but this time 1984) --Wllacer (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this does raise an important point. It is not for us to put labels on politicians one way or another. Perhaps the text should outline this divisive question in the opening statement. 'considered by many to be a fascist' (with citations) is better than just putting 'fascist'.Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He also supported the Axis in WWII. - Again, that is also a little difficult to verify. Spain was neutral in the Second World War. Hitler supported Franco during the Spanish Civil War, presumably expecting Spanish military assistance in future wars, however this did not happen. Diplomatic support was offered to Axis powers, however the Axis powers and the Spanish government never saw eye-to-eye during this era either, with the two powers disagreeing on issues such as Gibraltar. The Franco regime is a little bit of an enigma, because it never really committed to any international alliances, fascist or otherwise and more-or-less followed its own agenda. The characteristics of an autocracy are there but not necessarily the characteristics of fascism. It is never possible to say conclusively that someone was a fascist (although I doubt there is the same debate about Adolf Hitler), some people would say that all traffic wardens and other representatives of 'the establishment' are fascists. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it would help to establish a clear, article-related objective for this discussion. The article currently doesn't describe Franco as fascist, and I think it does an OK job of describing his relationship with fascism. If you want to remove the fascist side bar, I don't have a problem with that. I don't see the point to any of the responses to what I said. This isn't the place for debate unless disputes are tied back to the article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The argument runs and runs because it has an aftermath. Eisenhower (I think) would have done a post war deal with the devil himself if he thought it would weaken Stalin. So he did a deal with Franco. To some, the thought that a President of the United States did a deal with any sort of Fascist is unthinkable, and therefore Franco could not have been a Fascist. To others, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" is logic enough and Franco could have had horns as long as he permitted US bases on Spanish soil. The argument would be completely academic or even barren, merely a discussion about labels, AISI, were it not for the inconvenience of the corpses that appear from time to time. There is also the point that Franco felt hiself able to offer support to Hitler in 1940 in return for expansion of the Spanish empire. Hardly the act of a man with entirely clean hands. It is held by a number of Catalonians that the US payment for their bases on Spanish soil propped up Franco's madcap economic policies for many years after they should have been seen widely for the foolishness they were and perhaps caused his fall from power. Does this sort of analysis, done by better historians than me, have a place in a Wikipedia article, or is it enough merely to mention that there is dispute? Or is there enough fuel for a "Bastions against Communism" policy article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Franco favored the Spanish cultural diversity

I would like to change a paragraph that states that Franco repressed the cultural diversity of Spain. Before doing that I would like to start a discussion here in an attempt to ask the wikipedia contributors the source of this information. This is the original text in the version of April 20th 2011: “Franco's Spanish nationalism promoted a unitary national identity by repressing Spain's cultural diversity. Bullfighting and flamenco[51] were promoted as national traditions while those traditions not considered "Spanish" were suppressed.”

[1] Supposed repression of cultural diversity

I have read the source that is referenced identified as [51]. This source is based on an interview of a Flamenco Guitar teacher about the decline of students in flamenco guitar lessons. This teacher states that during Franco´s dictatorship this was more popular. I think that Franco’s dictatorship is a key episode in The Spanish History and so does deserve a more grounded reference. I lived during the dictatorship and traveled throughout all the Spanish regions. I didn’t see any policy of erasing the cultural diversity. On the contrary, Franco allowed one of the many political parties that supported him (Falange) to take care through its feminine Members (es:Sección Femenina) to provide visibility of the Spanish folklore and traditions of all its regions. This could be checked in the video footage of the yearly cultural events “es:Juegos Florales Internacionales”. So I state that this is not only false but that it is exactly the opposite. If Franco´s mistake of forbidding the regional languages as he did for public usage is considered by itself a cultural repression then the statement is true. But I consider that this has a broader meaning. I would consider more a cultural repression the language the policy that today some separatist regions apply when suggesting the teenagers to talk the regional language during the school break. The mistaken policy of using only one official language for public affairs was with the purpose of creating an efficient country and not for repression.

[2] Supposed unitary identity by suppressing regional supposed non-Spanish traditions

The dictator based the unitary identity on the Catholic System of Beliefs. This identity was not created by Franco but by The Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile. Franco placed himself below God as did all the traditional Spanish Kings until Ferdinand VII of Spain due to The French Revolution. He was a traditional leader and so very religious so it is hard to believe he wanted a cultural homogenous country. Look at today’s facts: Spain is still one of the richest countries in the world in cultural diversity in just half a million square kilometers. Only leaders stick to an Ideology try to homogenize a country in its cultural expressions and Franco has not ideology at all (This is explained in the books of Pío Moa). The two homogeneous policies he applied were to observe the Catholic ethical beliefs and to use a common language in all the nations for public affairs. I don't think is a a proper way to use the term "suppression of regional traditions".

[3] Bullfighting and Flamenco

Both were very popular during Franco´s dictatorship but they were that because the people wanted them to be popular. Franco didn`t force anybody to love Bullfighting and Flamenco. There is an important thing missing here: “La Jota Aragonese”. The Jota was also very popular and is not from Andalusia but from Aragon. I think that this statement provides a narrow view of those times. These were famous before Franco. Flamenco had a revival in the early nineties and Franco was already dead.

So I would suggest to erase that sentence and I don't see it properly grounded and doesn't reflect the experiences I had by this time. --Keenonmaps (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposal. Yes, the statement should have a better citation, but a reference based on specific reference in a tangentially related article is better than no citation at all. Please find a source that says that says Franco promoted cultural diversity. Also, I think you should not dismiss the importance of Franco's suppression of minority languages. You can't write this off by coming up with your own personal explanation justifying language suppression for the sake of efficiency. Do you have any citations for this view? From what I've read, Franco actively censored minority languages, especially culturally important media like music, theater, and literature. Most sources consider this censorship and not a benign attempt at efficiency. I'll try to get my citations together soon.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

The name given at the start of the article is incorrect

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo de Franco y Bahamonde Salgado-Araujo y Pardo de Andrade

His name, by modern standards, would simply read:

Francisco Franco (y) Bahamonde (given name - paternal surname - maternal surname)

If we were to include the baptismal names:

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco (y) Bahamonde (given name - baptismal names - paternal surname - maternal surname)

By the looks of it someone has simply tacked his parents maternal surnames on the end Salgado-Araujo y Pardo de Andrade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.48.204 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

in North Africa...in Spain

"Curiously, the city of Melilla, located in North Africa, has the distinction of being the only place in Spain where a statue of Franco is still visible on a public street."

Say wha...? This needs a bit of clarification for those unfamiliar with Melilla. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From the very Wikipedia: Melilla "is a 12.3 square kilometres (4.7 sq mi) autonomous city of Spain and an exclave located on the Mediterranean Sea, on the north coast of North Africa surrounded by Morocco". Anyone needing a clarification would just have to follow the link. 150.214.222.81 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The article text:

"Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional."

should be seriously reconsidered. The definition of fascism is sloppy, and the wording is convoluted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekoostic (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Franco was a fascist. His regime banned and persecuted Jewish,gave shelter and honored to hundreds of Nazis. He wrote proclamations against Jews under the pseudonym of Jokim Boor. His regime killed and tortured to hundreds thousands. Also 200 000 people died of starvation in the 40, and created a network to steal thousands of children with Nazi eugenic theories of psychiatrist Vallejo Nájera. Sorry for my english, i´m spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.217.71 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Foltz, American journalist played by the Associated Press correspondent in Madrid at the end of World War II, author of a book called "Masquerade in Spain ', published in Boston in 1948, says that according to official data that are provided in the Ministry of Justice of Madrid, between April 1, 1939 and June 30, 1944, the number of executed or died in Spanish prisons reached the figure of 192,684 people.

http://pnb.blogcindario.com/2009/04/00692-izquierda-socialista-psoe-cadiz-masquerade-in-spain-un-libro-prohibido.html

The list of Franco to the Holocaust The Franco regime in 1941 ordered provincial governors to develop a list of Jews living in Spain. The census, which included the names, employment data, ideological and personal than 6,000 Jews, was presumably given to Himmler. The Nazis drove into their plans for the final solution. When the fall of Hitler was already a fact, Franco's authorities tried to erase all evidence of their collaboration in the Holocaust

http://elpais.com/diario/2010/06/20/domingo/1277005953_850215.html

The idea of ​​the intimate relationship between Marxism and mental inferiority and above had other jobs in checking our hypothesis has enormous political significance social, because if they are active in Marxism preferably antisocial psychopaths, as is our idea, the segregation of these subjects from infancy, could free society so terrible plague. "These words of Antonio VallejoNájera commander, chief of the Military Psychiatric Services, culled from the book The madness in the war. Psychopathology of the Spanish war, published in Valladolid in 1939

http://www.elmundo.es/cronica/2002/111/1011609459.html

Children lost or stolen children of Franco by Franco, are those children who, during the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, were taken from their mothers Republican, either because they were in prison or because they had been killed by the military coup. 1 The crimes of which were the subject are: kidnapping, child trafficking and adoption ilegal.2

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C3%B1os_robados_por_el_franquismo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.207.78 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of "dictator" in the first sentence

I think the consensus is that Franco was, to some degree at least, a dictator. But is it appropriate or needed to describe him straight off as a "general, dictator and the leader of the Nationalist military rebellion in the Spanish Civil War, and authoritarian head of state of Spain"? I propose replacing 'dictator' with 'politician' (not that I'm suggesting 'politician' is a synonym for dictator...) to counter the description as a general - because he was a general and politician. Also then describing him as the "authoritarian head of state of Spain", which is more appropriate, means that the description "dictator" isn't needed. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for your change? I restore the word dictator. emijrp (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think dictator is clearly warranted and supported by sources. Whether it is redundant to then describe him as the authoritarian head of Spain I think is more debatable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

His Excellency

Why do we have the above words in the infobox? Or why do we not have, for example, "Her Majesty" in the article about Queen Elisabeth II? --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Can user 86.156.204.235 please explain what is objectionable about the new lead? he seems to be implying NPOV but I'm not sure. Cliniic (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The introduction that you are substituting by your own text is the result of several years of consensual editing by a community of Wikipedia users. The changes that you are introducing are objectionable because: 1. they are single-handedly replacing the existing text, rather than working consensually and incrementally along with the rest of the community of editors, 2. they omit important aspects of Franco's regime and its legacy (in particular anything relating to the condemnation of the breaches of human rights) and 3. they substitute these elements by anecdotal accounts of Franco's success (e.g. during the early stages of his military career), which, in the context of Franco's authoritarian regime, are frivolous and suspiciously flattering. --86.156.204.235 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Page temporarily protected, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

1. The lead is supposed to adequately cover the contents of the article. In this context, I have added background + military career in paragraph 1, the events leading to the coup + leadership during the war in paragraph 2, the policies of regime + maintaining power in paragraph 3, and lastly the final years, succession and legacy in paragraph 4. These are not anecdotal accounts but relevant to the biography.

2. Where in the lead is the breach of human rights (concentration camps, forced labour and repression etc) omitted?

Cliniic (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If paragraph 1 is the offending bit, I suppose we can amend it to just something like Franco "was a decorated soldier" + his background. Still, I can't see how you are accusing me of putting up a cv for him. Cliniic (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• This paragraph appears to be extolling the virtues of Franco’s early military career as a soldier (which, in the broader context of his authoritarian regime and crimes against humanity, seems frivolous and unnecessarily flattering):

He was in succession the youngest captain, major and colonel in the Spanish army, and was twice nominated for, and won once the Order of San Fernando, Spain's highest military award for gallantry.[1][2] Franco rose to national prominence as a commander of the Spanish Legion in the 1920s. At the age of 33, in 1926, he became the youngest general in Spain and in all Europe.[3]

“He was a decorated soldier” is a compromise that I would be willing to accept (I’d be happy to wait and see what others think).

• The phrase “secure the support of Italy and Germany” glosses over Franco’s collaborations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It is important to spell out who Franco was collaborating with and why. This is an important aspect of his ideological stands and the political-historical context in which he rose to power. Your version has removed all mention of the bombing of Guernica (a crucial turning point in the Civil War) and the Nazi use of Spanish ports during WWII (again, highly significant).

• “Leftists” (or “reds”) was the derogatory term used by Franco supporters to refer to their enemies (i.e. those who defended the democratically elected Republican government which he was trying to overthrow). A less biased (more neutral) term is the “Popular Front”.

• The expression “subsequently marginalized by the leftist government” is misleading. Marginalized implies bullying, or alienation. Franco was separated from the more vulnerable institutions surrounding the central government due to (well founded) suspicions about his intentions to overthrow the democratically elected government.

• “became internationally known for suppressing the anarchist uprising of 1934” Again, this is excessively flattering, presenting Franco as an international hero. I would substitute this for a more neutral phrase: “and contributed to suppress the anarchist uprising of 1934”.

• “emerged as the undisputed leader of the Nationalists.” Again, hints of heroism coming through. I would omit “undisputed”, which, moreover, conveys a misleading sense of unity during a period of turmoil and the imposition of might.

• ”brutally repressing leftism” This is misleading. He repressed all forms of ideology that went against his own. He repressed regional identities, homosexuality, Freemasons, etc. “Ideological enemies” would be more accurate.

• The list of referenced concentration camps that has been deleted from your version supports is useful and significant information (allowing users to better understand the meaning of “concentration camp” in this context). It should not be omitted.

• The statement “Socially, Franco was a conservative” is a risible euphemism. David Cameron or Ronald Reagan are conservative. Franco was beyond conservative, he was “ultra-conservative” or “reactionary”.

• “Franco has a mixed legacy in Spain”. Again, this is misleading. The statement suggests that Spain is equally divided between those who admire Franco and those who have a few issues with his policies. True, some people support Franco, but let’s put it into perspecive: The public display of Francoist pre-constitutional symbols is banned by law in Spain. Franco is widely regarded as a war criminal, and publicly extolling his virtues and the values that he espoused is regarded as a form of hate crime under Spanish law.

Spet1363 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree that the new version has POV issues. The previous version of the lead was the result of a lot of back and forth and shouldn't be completely tossed away. Clinic, what would you want to change from the old version if it were edited substantially instead of scrapped? Conversely, Clinic's version could be cleaned up. One of the biggest issues is the use of "leftists" where "Republicans" or "Popular Front" should be used. There's also a lot of ridiculous puffery on Franco's military career. Do we really need to list every promotion through the ranks? Can't we assume he wasn't born a general? How important is the "Order of San Fernando"? Maybe it's more significant than I know, but we don't list JFK's medals in the lead for his article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I did not replace Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy with "Italy and Germany." Those were the words in use before. Anyway the edit was not meant to gloss over anything. I thought the article was focussing too much on the general civil war at the expense of Franco's role and actions during the war. That is why I also removed the bit about the Soviets supporting the government. But I dont see any problem in adding the text back. I will admit that I was not aware Guernica was seen as a major turning point in the war. Otherwise I would not have removed it. Maybe add "played a crucial role...etc" after the bit where it says "was able to secure the support"?

2. I was actually thinking about this. Maybe use republicans? Btw I was not aware leftism can be construted as a degtratory term. This is rather a suprise.

3. English is not my native language but still I cant see how anyone could make it out to mean that he was bullied or socially targetted. What I hope others would understand by marginalized is "marginalized from power". That is why I added the context, that he was identified as a conservative and monarchist officer after the establishment of the republic. Read between the lines and you can get that the government saw him as a threat. However, if others agree this is confusing maybe add clarifications? Marginalized to "marginalized from power" and for context, state that the government feared a army coup.

4. Didn't Franco become well known for that amongst the fascist powers? That and touring Germany while as a instructor in the Zaragoza academy? I thought it was relevant in showing how he was able to build connections that helped out during the war.

5. Actually from what I had read, Franco was able to take complete control of the rebels while the left remain divided. That the nationalists were united in fighting under Franco against a divided enemy is something I have often seen emphasized as playing an important role in the war. I think it is relevant to convey this.

6. Agree, I can see why this is confusing. Maybe change leftists to enemies?

7. Isn't the link to the Francoist concentration camps adequate for that? I wouldnt have deleted the names if they could be linked to respective articles but otherwise it seemed to be needlessly clattering up space.

8. I am not too sure about this. Many simply describe him as a conservative autocrat like the Latin American dictators.

9. Is he really widely condemned? By all accounts, Spain only slowly and hesitantly began to confront the Francoist legacy as opposed to Germany where Hitler quickly became the symbol of evil. Didn't the Spanish conservatives vote against the Historical Memory Law? Cliniic (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bkwillwm. I did not mean to puff up Franco's military career. At the time of rewriting the lead, I had in mind four distinct sections as I have outlined in the second post. The old version had "Franco was from a military family, and although originally intent on entering the Spanish Navy, he instead became a soldier. He participated in the Rif War in Morocco, becoming the youngest general in Europe by 1926." I decided to expand and detail his military career in the first section according to the outline. I didn't realize at the time some people might find it distasteful or see it "extolling the virtues of Franco’s early military career." While I now recognize the problems with the rewrite, at the time I honestly could not see someone having a problem with it. I hope we can work together to get the problems fixed. Again let me retirate that I did not mean to make it look like Franco was a great hero. Apologies if it came across that way. I simply meant to devote the first section to his military career and decided that his quick promotions, and medal citations were the most relevant material to put in. Cliniic (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected, Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cliniic, thank you for your comments. This sounds to me like a massive list of edits to end up saying more or less what was already there albeit from a different angle. Seeing as it has taken a large group of editors many months to work consensually towards the last version of the lead, may I suggest that we do it the other way around: i.e. revert the version to its original state before your modification and use that as a starting point to discuss aspects that you would like to have included? This would allow us to carry on working consensually and incrementally (which has proven to be the way forward with controversial articles like this). 86.156.204.235 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several remarks above praising collaborative editing. To help foster that, it may be necessary to temporarily suspend the editing privileges of individuals who repeatedly revert others' work wholesale. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

funny that you (86.156.204.235) ask my opinion when you simply revert whenever you get the chance! Anyway any feedback Spet and Bkwillwm? Cliniic (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"baptised on 17 December at the military church of San Francisco"

I think the article should make it clear we are not talking about the more famous San Francisco. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Generalísimo" or "Generalissimo"?

Both are used in the article - which is correct?

Even if both are technically correct, shouldn't one or the other be used consistently throughout?

"Generalissimo" appears in the introduction, throughout the body of the article, and in the Military Service section of the side box.

"Generalísimo" appears once in the body of the article, and also at the very top of the side box (above the subject's name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Generalísimo is Spanish; Generalissimo is English.  — TORTOISEWRATH 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

1936 or 1939

The Spanish Republic existed until March 1939 & the Civil War ended on April 1, 1939. Shouldn't that mark the moment Franco becomes dictator? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a better picture available for the article caption?

The present image is terrible. He's actually wearing sunglasses in this one. The color is irretrievably bad. Isn't there a reasonably good public domain picture out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Native speaker of Galician

Regarding the claim made recently "[Franco] was a native speaker of Spanish and Gallego... he occasionally made public addresses in that language.", and not having been able, until now, to check the source provided, I got in touch with our colleagues at Wikipedia in Galician, who have confirmed my suspicions. At best, the claim is original research and pure conjecture. The citation given is that of a clearly sarcastic short essay by Xesús Alonso Montero, the current president of the Royal Galician Academy, a professor of Galician literature, and a sociolinguist, and from which I quote the following:

"Se cadra, do que se trata é de que Franco empregou algunha breve frase ou algunha palabra en galego. No descarto, in extremis, que citase algún verso popular en galego... que, na súa incultura, atribuiría a Rosalía de Castro. ... creo que o seu coñecemento da lingua galega era moit cativo.", which roughly translated goes like this: "Franco may have interspersed the odd Galician word or phrase in his speeches. I don't rule out, in extremis, that he may even have quoted some popular verse in Galician... which in his lack of culture he would have attributed to Rosalía de Castro. ... I think his knowledge of Galician was very bad." Alonso Montero, Xesus. Ensaios breves de literatura e política. Nigra. 1996. pp. 64–65

So, far from bearing out the statement that Franco was a native speaker of Galician, the reference provided basically states the opposite. If anyone wants to reinsert a mention of Franco and his eventual knowledge of Galician, correctly reflecting what the reference provided states, fine. Meanwhile, out it goes. At least in its present wording.--Technopat (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Have modified my rough translation above to better reflect the Royal Galician Academy's Dictionary entry for "cativo".--Technopat (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Staying out of WW2

'Some historians argue that Franco made demands he knew Hitler would not accede to in order to stay out of the war.'

Yes. Hitler's minister Admiral Canaris, who was organizing a resistance movement, secretly rehearsed Franco in advance of the latter's meeting with Hitler. An experienced diplomat and fluent Spanish-speaker, he presented Franco with strong arguments for Spanish neutrality, and suggested terms that Hitler was certain to reject. Valetude (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Falange was fascist therefore Franco was a fascist

I am baffled why Franco is not explicitly described as a fascist. He used to dress in the blue shirt of the Falange. He took control of the "movement". He destroyed democracy and murdered the opposition. If he is not fascist I don't know who is. He is described as apolitical which is exactly what the fascists said of themselves when they said they were "neither right nor left". Franco used the fascist salute. Stanley G. Payne, who wrote the Franco Regime, stresses the fascist influences of the Falange and calls Franco's régime "semi-fascistic". Franco eventually distanced himself from the Falange but that does not erase his prior commitment to the Falange. Pistolpierre (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to describe the fascist influence on Franco's regime

Clearly this article needs to be improved. Franco's fascist years are not described. The fascist influences on Franco's regime are not described. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is not only inaccurate, but it has five sources, which seems odd given how untrue it is:

Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.[72][73][74][75][76] Pistolpierre (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Francisco Franco's death

+ On November 20, 1975, just after midnight, when relatives asked doctors to remove his support systems, the 82-year-old Francisco Franco passed away. http://www.jacanaent.com/Biographies/Pages/FrancoF.htm date was relevant to Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.16.17 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)